Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41535990›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2026

A taxonomy of the process in implementation science: the Global Impact Analytics Framework (GIAF).

Luis Salvador-Carulla, Sue Lukersmith, Cindy Woods, Federico Alonso-Trujillo, Tom Chen, GIAF Taxonomy Expert Panel group (group authors)

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Luis Salvador-CarullaFaculty of Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5742-9866
Sue LukersmithFaculty of Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8202-3828
Cindy WoodsFaculty of Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia. cindy.woods@canberra.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5790-069X
Federico Alonso-TrujilloConsejería de Salud y Consumo de La Junta de Andalucía, Seville, Spain.
Tom ChenKent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, England.
GIAF Taxonomy Expert Panel group (group authors)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite growing global efforts to evaluate the impact of research, there remains a lack of practical, standardised tools to assess implementation in the real-world.

aimThis study introduces a comprehensive implementation taxonomy for use in impact evaluations based on onto-terminology principles.

methodsThis work is part of the Global Impact Analytics Framework (GIAF) program. An international expert panel of 32 members developed the taxonomy using nominal group techniques and an iterative refinement process. The design was informed by the Technology Readiness Levels for Implementation Sciences (TRL-IS) to ensure its relevance and application across the life cycle of implementation. Case studies have been conducted in ten countries and the knowledge gained from practical experiences has been incorporated into the taxonomy.

resultsThe GIAF taxonomy outlines 82 subdomains organised across 15 domains and three sequential implementation phases. The Initiation phase captures early preparatory steps before real-world use, including planning, engagement, and pre-readiness. The Maturity phase focuses on early implementation and real-world demonstration studies, covering the initiative's readiness (from demonstration to release), dissemination, usability, adoption, and uptake. The Evolution phase refers to later-stage activities once the intervention or tool is fully implemented, with domains encompassing sustainability, diffusion, prolongation, expansion, diversification, exporting, and de-implementation. The taxonomy is supported by tools including a glossary and practical checklists to guide consistent application.

conclusionsThe GIAF taxonomy offers a structured, detailed, and flexible toolkit for evaluating implementation processes using mixed methods and across diverse projects and settings. It supports both quantitative scoring and qualitative insight to inform cross-context comparison and learning. By clearly defining and measuring these processes, it enhances the rigour, replicability, and comparability of implementation research and practice. The taxonomy also supports comparative effectiveness analyses of implementation strategies. This comprehensive approach addresses a critical gap in the implementation science field, contributing to stronger evidence-based practices, health and social care programs, and research globally. The GIAF toolkit provides researchers, evaluators, and other decision-makers with a practical resource for assessing implementation impact. It can also support planning processes and, through learnings from assessment results, help improve future implementation efforts.

Indexed as

Global impact analytics frameworkGlossaryHealthImpactImplementationTaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID41535990
PMCPMC12888540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.